Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

And I still think you are ignoring an important factor here.
There is more than one character in search of truth. Battler, Ange, Featherine, the Witch Hunters, Bernkastel, Erika, they all search for the truth and they all have different approaches.

Err...

-Battler completely changes side in the end
-Ange admits she was wrong in searching the truth
-Featherine isn't a completely positive character
-the witch hunters are depicted as idiots
-Bernkastel is the antagonist of this story (she said it herself)
-Erika ... is Erika...

In the end there is absolutely no positive representation of those who search the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by haguruma

How is what Ange did in the trick end connected to gaining the truth?!
She decides to pass judgement because of the evidence she found, okay. We already disclosed that in the case of Amakusa it was probably even justified to kill him out of selfdefense. But the captain?! There was no sufficient prove that he has not been bought by her enemies therefore his innocence is more unlikely than his crime...that is the reason why Ange killed him.
She created the truth that Amakusa and Kawabata sold her over to be killed from evidence she found, but does that make it the truth?!

And who denies that? But why are you ignoring the fact that you reach this ending simply by choosing to state a completely harmless truth? As if "deny magic choose truth = becoming a paronoid killer".

Quote:

Originally Posted by haguruma

I also wouldn't characterize Erika as the antagonist of Umineko, she is just the opposing force to Battler's approach.

Are you aware that "opposing force" is practically the literal etymological meaning of "antagonist"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

That's not what I was saying. It's almost like you haven't been reading. Magic can be the power of astronomical odds; it can be the power to be totally certain about something and never have to doubt; it can be the power to create ideas out of nothing or to have those ideas not be forgotten for all eternity.

It's the power to push pain onto another. It's the power to wash hatred away and turn monsters into pitiable persons. It's the power to see anything that you couldn't see before; sometimes that is a delusion or an embellishment, but sometimes it can be as divine revelation.

This is all shit said in the novel practically word for word.

I'm sorry but I'll have to reiterate that you are unilaterally concluding that everything supernatural is magic. I'll say it once again:"magic" has a precise meaning in Umineko, in order to avoid confusion you shouldn't use it in its widespread meaning.

Provide a proof of single instance where it was stated that "red truth" = "magic", then we can talk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

In the spirit of abusing quantum physics terminology, are you familiar with the idea of "multiple histories"? For a closed cat box, you can either to take the view that there was always only one history hidden inside, or you can say that all possible histories existed inside the box until the moment you opened it and observed one. Are you really sure that the former is how Umineko's universe works, from a meta-world perspective?

Of course you want to punish the culprit, but which history are you looking at to make the accusation? Isn't that like taking a room full of equally suspicious people and arbitrarily throwing one in jail because you needed a conviction?

That's why quantum physics theories fail if applied to everyday life situations. Even Umineko is clear in saying that once you open the catbox there is only one truth remaining. Even EP8 doesn't deny the existence of a "single truth", not even Battler denies it. A "single truth" exists, that was made clear. I've seen other works where they actually state that no truth exists, but it isn't the case with Umineko.

In Umineko the existence of a single truth is acknowledged, what isn't acknowledged is the importance of that single truth.

I'm sorry but I'll have to reiterate that you are unilaterally concluding that everything supernatural is magic. I'll say it once again:"magic" has a precise meaning in Umineko, in order to avoid confusion you shouldn't use it in its widespread meaning.

Well, just so we can be clear about this whole thing instead of just talking in circles, what would you say the specific definition of "magic" in Umineko actually is? Because from all the discussion they do about Maria's white magic and Beatrice's golden magic and Eva-Beatrice's black magic, along with the bit in Episode 8 about how it's easy to cast magic on others and believe in other people's magic, but hard to cast magic on yourself, I'd say that magic is pretty much just "anything that moves the human heart".

So from that perspective, I have no problem with calling Episode 8's last riddle "magic". Sure it's obviously sleight of hand, but it becomes magic by default when you accept the witch's feelings and intent.

I'm sorry but I'll have to reiterate that you are unilaterally concluding that everything supernatural is magic. I'll say it once again:"magic" has a precise meaning in Umineko, in order to avoid confusion you shouldn't use it in its widespread meaning.

Provide a proof of single instance where it was stated that "red truth" = "magic", then we can talk.

I have to interject here. Nothing in what you quoted talks about red truth at all so you're not reiterating anything relevant. AT's talking about types of magic. The magic of certainty, the magic of defeating fate with miracles, the endless, which always claim it got what it wants, making 1 from 0 i.e witch of origns, etc. These are all themes that appear in the story that exist outside the definition saying magic is an embellishment. There is more than one type of magic. The text even creates a dichotomy of white witches and black witches who obviously beleive very different things. Now AT may have been talking about red truth earlier, but he's not invoking Dlanor's Knox's 2nd argument.

Of course you want to punish the culprit, but which history are you looking at to make the accusation? Isn't that like taking a room full of equally suspicious people and arbitrarily throwing one in jail because you needed a conviction?

If in the real world crimes were both committed and not committed by an individual simultaneously, I would err on the side of being merciful. However, that sort of scenario never plays out. So far as we can tell, there's only one history, and so far as I can tell from Umineko there's only one "real" outcome of events.

Besides, we seem to be forgetting that the box is only metaphorically closed by lack of information known to us. Both Battler and Eva were actually there, remember, and both of them survived. The lack of any appreciable information applies only to Ange, and to us. Battler and Eva both actually observed what occurred, they simply chose not to, or were unable to, reveal what they saw.

If I peek into the box and see that the cat is in fact dead, then close the box up and refuse to tell you my observation, there is no chance whatsoever that the cat will be alive when you check it.

Yeah Ryukishi really messed up when he said alternate worlds could exist in the catbox early on. There's really only one truth about the catbox that the cat is either alive or dead in the way the analogy is supposed to work. Now there can be alternate histories, but the characters we're seeing exist in only one of those histories worlds. Follow me? They can only find the one true history of the world they exist in if it exists. If there is an alternate history it is therefore evident that there is also an alternate catbox.

I would just say that if one truly believes the sole purpose of a justice system is socially-mandated vengeance and retribution, one has an incredibly immature (but regrettably incredibly common) view of what justice is and why it is virtuous to pursue it.

I would really love to hear a defintion of justice that is not based on subjective constructs of good and evil in the context of a certain societies equality system.

If you can give me that, maybe I'll change my opinion, but for me the justice system only serves one purpose and that is to create a space in which there is an equal relation between every action that is taken. The chain of "Action<>Consequence" is reinacted for the public in order to convince them that something like social order, equality and safety actually exist...when in reality it just reconstructs them retroactively until the next irregularity disrupts the system.
And what better way to convince people of the existence of order than to single out elements of chaos and punish them.

We have to have something like that, because without it chaos would probably truly break out...but in the end the system works through the fear of punishment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

In the end there is absolutely no positive representation of those who search the truth.

And who denies that? But why are you ignoring the fact that you reach this ending simply by choosing to state a completely harmless truth? As if "deny magic choose truth = becoming a paronoid killer".

Symbolism and Metaphors are not for you, aren't they?!
Ryűkishi just chose a scene that would minimalize the whole problem of Ange's dilemma to one question and that is, wether to look at the hard facts (Beato was holding it in her other hand all the time) to be able to believe in something beyond mere visual evidence (Beato gave it her all to present Ange with something good).
The whole choice wasn't about choosing truth or illusion, neither is it about facing the facts or denial, it is about embracing love despite truth or abandoning love because of truth. It's a choice wether or not you can still love somebody even though you know they did horrible things.

Ange never admitted to be wrong, she just admitted that her way to search for HER truth, that is the 'truth' that Eva killed everybody, brought her nothing but despair.
Just like Battler blindly saught for the 'truth' that there was an additional person Beatrice on the island, who killed his relatives.

Quote:

In Umineko the existence of a single truth is acknowledged, what isn't acknowledged is the importance of that single truth.

Because it isn't important to those people whom it concerns.
We can think it's wrong for them to do so, but it is still their right to do that.
Ange decides to love her family and let them live in her heart despite the (probable) single truth that they all murdered each other in cold blood over money.
What astonishes me is how so many people here can outright refuse this approach, when it is something that probably any of us has done or will do in his or her life. Subjective truth is important to the individual, because if we were to believe in only one single and cold truth, the red truth so to say, we would stop being human.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judoh

Yeah Ryukishi really messed up when he said alternate worlds could exist in the catbox early on. [...] They can only find the one true history of the world they exist in if it exists. If there is an alternate history it is therefore evident that there is also an alternate catbox.

I think at some points there was also some mess-up on both sides.
Ryűkishi's terminology is a bit off at some points (mashing Braun-tubes, cat-boxes, multiple universes and all that together into one big mess) but some people seem to have taken it the wrong way what the actual point was.

Of course there is only one true history for a singular timeline. The catbox in this case is the point of uncertainty, where technically all universes cross and any possibility can be inserted.
The problem is that, once the future is known/it exists, there is a set of given rules the content of the box has to follow once it is opened. In the case of the Rokkenjima catbox that is:

Only Eva is known to have returned from Rokkenjima

Ange only has Eva

Eva has a vast ammount of money

Rokkenjima's center has been destroyed

Two bottle-letters arrived telling the story

The list goes on of course, but those are important things that the content of the catbox, concerning that particular 1998, must be synchronized with.

That is why Bernkastel can create the truth that Ushiromiya Lion must still die at the end of Episode 7. From the perspective of that 1998 there cannot be a happy ending where everybody left the island and the typhoon passed without any tragedy.
How that coherency with the future is reached is basically irrelevant as long as all the events happened that can be observed from 1998. Of course it could be that everybody held a happy party and then a natural desaster struck...but then there must be a coherent explanation why Eva was in Kuwadorian, why the bottle letters describe such horrific events, why Battler was washed on the shore of Niijima with amnesia.

Inside the catbox, disconnected from past and future, every possible universe can of course exist, but it's probability of existence is different depending on it's relation to past and present.
The content of Episode 7 has a probability that is close to, if not just 0.
The content of Episode 1, 2 has a relatively low probabilty unless you can find a way in which Eva faked her death.
The content of Episode 3 has a high probability in context with the future, but is lowered again due to it's incoherency with the past (e.g. why would Eva kill George or Hideyoshi?).

I would really love to hear a defintion of justice that is not based on subjective constructs of good and evil in the context of a certain societies equality system.

The construction of justice is arbitrary and subjective, but morally upright justice derives its foundations from universal ethical principles. Of course if you don't believe that to be the case, I suppose you're free to turn up your nose at the notion that any individual can act unethically at all.

I don't want to get into a philosophical debate as to whether universal principles exist, as it is wildly off topic. The point is, even if a justice system is entirely arbitrary and in conformity with the mores of the society in which it applies, murder is considered wrong in 1980s Japan, as I imagine it is wherever you are. Society does not value the taking of life. Yet many societies will not "punish" death with death. They still want to see justice done, however.

The mere fact that the culprit remains unknown is a miscarriage of justice, if for no other reason than it does not satisfy the desire of individuals to have some understanding as to why the crime occurred (and individual desires should be able to skirt the entire argument about societal justice models, as they fulfill solely individual needs).

Of course there is only one true history for a singular timeline. The catbox in this case is the point of uncertainty, where technically all universes cross and any possibility can be inserted.

I'm of course saying that it technically can't though. The content inside the catbox is the same even if it's never opened. It's either there or it isn't, The analogy never allowed for both to exist because you don't know what's inside it because the intention of the analogy is to call that idea absurd.

Their technical crossing would be a mental one and not one based on reality.

Quote:

it's probability of existence is different depending on it's relation to past and present.

The probability only exists because of what we're told of the past and future. If the past and future are made to be different the catbox can also be different.

I'm sorry but I'll have to reiterate that you are unilaterally concluding that everything supernatural is magic. I'll say it once again:"magic" has a precise meaning in Umineko, in order to avoid confusion you shouldn't use it in its widespread meaning.

Provide a proof of single instance where it was stated that "red truth" = "magic", then we can talk.

None of what you quoted here has anything to do with the supernatural. I'm going to have to question your reading comprehension skills.

As for the Red Truth, it's "a power granted only to witches", which is pretty much magic in a nutshell. Moreover, it's something that gives "absolute certainty", which is a kind of magic. HERP DERP.

Quote:

If I peek into the box and see that the cat is in fact dead, then close the box up and refuse to tell you my observation, there is no chance whatsoever that the cat will be alive when you check it.

Imagine how embarrassing that would be. "W-...why the fuck is that cat not dead?"

If in the real world crimes were both committed and not committed by an individual simultaneously, I would err on the side of being merciful. However, that sort of scenario never plays out. So far as we can tell, there's only one history, and so far as I can tell from Umineko there's only one "real" outcome of events.

Besides, we seem to be forgetting that the box is only metaphorically closed by lack of information known to us. Both Battler and Eva were actually there, remember, and both of them survived. The lack of any appreciable information applies only to Ange, and to us. Battler and Eva both actually observed what occurred, they simply chose not to, or were unable to, reveal what they saw.

If I peek into the box and see that the cat is in fact dead, then close the box up and refuse to tell you my observation, there is no chance whatsoever that the cat will be alive when you check it.

You keep talking about the pieces when I'm talking about the author. Tohya, Eva, and the diary are parts of the Twilight narrative, not things that necessarily have an independent existence. Suppose I write something like this:

Quote:

Dick and Jane were seen going into the hotel room together. There were sounds of arguing followed by a gunshot, so the neighbors called the police. The officers arrived and found the murderer standing over the victim's body. They arrested the culprit at once.

Clearly I've had the characters establish that there was a specific culprit, but I as the author didn't establish who it was. The story is consistent both with Dick being the killer and Jane being the killer. So tell me, which of them should I write into the ending of the story? Who should I kill, and who should I condemn as the culprit?

How about if I replace "Dick and Jane" with "Renall's mother and father"?

__________________

"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."

Clearly I've had the characters establish that there was a specific culprit, but I as the author didn't establish who it was. The story is consistent both with Dick being the killer and Jane being the killer. So tell me, which of them should I write into the ending of the story? Who should I kill, and who should I condemn as the culprit?

How about if I replace "Dick and Jane" with "Renall's mother and father"?

None of this makes any sense. There would be no vagueness or ambiguity within the world of the story. As soon as the police arrive, the identity of the killer and victim is clear. The mere fact that your story does not state who it is does not mean that, within the world of the story, it is nebulously possible that either of them is the killer. It merely means that one of them is a killer, and the audience does not yet know who. It is possible, indeed, that the audience is never told. However, to say that no one inside the fiction knows is absurd; of course they do. And, one hopes, so too does the author.

To say otherwise is either to make no point at all, or to admit that totally ambiguous plotting is acceptable.

So basically I really don't understand what you're railing against, because it's a pointless argument that has nothing to do with anything.

What do you think should be done with the dead? Should we have a funeral for them and try to remember the best parts of who they were? Or should we tear out their guts, read their diaries, and expose everything bad about them to the world.

Yeah there is a difference between "tearing their guts" and revealing they were mass murderers.

Quote:

EP7 is probably a pretty good idea of what happened. The background scenes from the diary hint that its not too far off. Bern literally exposes all of a corpses insides to the world and shows the worst parts of each of the character. That's the kind of justice you want, the guilt and onus of crime to rest on a pair of shoulders.

As Kyrie says to Eva "You're just a murderer who didn't get the chance." That can be said of most of the characters on Rokkenjima.

We are not what we want to do, we are what we do. If you didn't kill someone you are innocent. If you killed someone you are guilty.

Quote:

So, what we get offered, is the chance to say "They may be that... but they are also this" and show the best of who they are rather than the very worst.

You don't get to be treated well if you kill someone. You don't get to be remembered for the good things you did if you kill someone.

The moment you pull that trigger, your very soul is escaping that chamber together with the bullet.

If you are asking me, or if Ryuukishi is asking the reader, to feel compassion for a cold blooded murderer and remember him at his best, I honestly find that very offensive.

Imagine you heard on the news that a memorial was held for a rapist, and heard everyone talk about how great he was. Wouldn't that disgust you?

Quote:

The only people who seem to really be under suspicion for the crime are the Ushiromiya family. Nanjo's son doesn't seem to worry about his family. The same probably applies to Gohda's family.

So, because they weren't shown to worry are we to assume they are sociopaths? Are we supposed to assume that a man doesn't care if the whole world thinks his father is a criminal? Bullshit.

The only reason we didn't see how he felt about it is that he wasn't a main character.

Quote:

There is nothing dignified about reaching into opening the coffin that is Rokkenjima and there is no justice to be had. The desire to punish evil is no more noble than the desire to spell "Murderer" in piss on one or more of the graves of the dead.

Let's have a bit of a sociology class here:
->Evil is not punished by society.
->Evil stops being seen as a taboo.
->Evil is repeated over and over again.
->Society falls apart.

Justice is to exonerate the names of the innocent and to shame the names of the guilty.

Punishing evil not only makes society work, it gives people a sense of relief. A sense that tells them "It's good to live in a society where evil gets punished." No, let's go beyond that. Are you saying that if a killer commits suicide his crimes should be forgotten?

Dying does not exonerate you of your guilt, it only makes it impossible for you to repent for your crimes.

Really, Umineko comes down to "Truth is bad, escapism is good!" It's the polar opposite of Final Fantasy Tactics Advance.

It's just a bad, cowardly, disgusting message. Ryu is either a terrible writer who delivered the wrong message by accident, or he just chooses to focus on a theme that I find disgusting.

There may be cultural differences here, so I can't judge him based on that. But Umineko's final message comes off as stupid, childish, and bad philosophy.

I can't understand how people buy this as valid. It's a repulsive message to me. Exposing the truth is portrayed as worse than murder. It does so with flowery metaphors and all, but it doesn't change the fact of how stupid that message is.

Oh he killed someone? Eh poor guy, had a tough day at work. Must've been Monday.

Oh someone is trying to tell everyone who is guilty and who is innocent? WHAT A HEARTLESS MOTHERFUCKER!

You don't get to be treated well if you kill someone. You don't get to be remembered for the good things you did if you kill someone.

The moment you pull that trigger, your very soul is escaping that chamber together with the bullet.

If you are asking me, or if Ryuukishi is asking the reader, to feel compassion for a cold blooded murderer and remember him at his best, I honestly find that very offensive.

Imagine you heard on the news that a memorial was held for a rapist, and heard everyone talk about how great he was. Wouldn't that disgust you?

I'm not gonna get into it because it's tremendously off topic, but I would say that it's on the childish side to let a single horrible act define a person entirely (though that person still needs to pay for their crimes).

Quote:

Really, Umineko comes down to "Truth is bad, escapism is good!" It's the polar opposite of Final Fantasy Tactics Advance.

It's just a bad, cowardly, disgusting message. Ryu is either a terrible writer who delivered the wrong message by accident, or he just chooses to focus on a theme that I find disgusting.

I'll go for the terrible writer angle because I'm apparently the only person in the world who didn't get this message.

Though to be fair, he's still a better writer than the FFTA guys. "HERP DERP FUCK YOU DONED YOU'RE GETTING BACK IN THE WHEELCHAIR."

None of this makes any sense. There would be no vagueness or ambiguity within the world of the story. As soon as the police arrive, the identity of the killer and victim is clear. The mere fact that your story does not state who it is does not mean that, within the world of the story, it is nebulously possible that either of them is the killer. It merely means that one of them is a killer, and the audience does not yet know who. It is possible, indeed, that the audience is never told. However, to say that no one inside the fiction knows is absurd; of course they do. And, one hopes, so too does the author.

When did I say anything about the killer's identity being ambiguous "within the world of the story"? I'm talking about the meta level here. We can argue about the morality of pieces till we're blue in the face, but in a setting where authors are presented as gods of the worlds they create, it's the authors that ultimately hold responsibility for the flow of events directing those pieces.

In that little story fragment I wrote, I deliberately underspecified the culprit, but I could have just picked a character with no particular problem. I invented those characters from whole cloth and have no emotional investment in them, so that world isn't real to me. But what about Meta-Battler, who has the same opportunity? Try to put yourself in his shoes for a minute. He's a character who was elevated out of his story and placed in a position to write the continuation of that story. He still has strong emotional connections to all of the characters, and he thinks of them as real people even though he's now on a higher plane than they are.

EP7's tea party suggested that any of the adults could have become the culprit depending on the precise circumstances, and we have very little information about what the precise circumstances actually were. That means the story up until Twilight could, in fact, be ambiguous as to which adult was "really" the culprit, and multiple fragments are consistent with the evidence. So if Meta-Battler points at one of those fragments and says "There, that one is the real one," then he's not revealing the truth, he's defining it. From his perspective, Meta-Ange is basically demanding that he pick one of the people he loves and sacrifice them.

In that situation, is it somehow strange and evil for him to say "I'm writing this story for you, so I'll choose a culprit if I must, but I'm begging you not to make me"?

__________________

"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."

Bear in mind, to elaborate on what LyricalAura is saying, they're not exactly saying this is the case for "Rokkenjima Prime", but Meta-Battler doesn't have access to such a world, and neither does Ange. It's gone and only magic can recover information from that blind spot. Meta-Battler can't provide any information his writer doesn't actually know.

The moment you pull that trigger, your very soul is escaping that chamber together with the bullet.

If you are asking me, or if Ryuukishi is asking the reader, to feel compassion for a cold blooded murderer and remember him at his best, I honestly find that very offensive.

I don't know what country you're from, but were your grandparents or parents in any of the great wars of the 20th century (1st, 2nd world war, Vietnam, Korea). If yes it is highly probable that they killed somebody. Is that killing immediatly justified, because it was done in the name of peace, freedom or safety of one's kinsmen?! And if not...are you unable to feel compassion for your family because they murdered?!

And now don't give me that whole "they didn't have a chance/they did it for their beliefs" crap. Killing is killing, wether you do it because of something everybody believes or something only you yourself believe.
Murder is a terrible thing, of course, but saying that a murderer is loosing his humanity the minute he murders is just wrong and mysteries that tell such a lie are the worst mysteries. Murder happens because someone is human. The potential for destruction is as much a part of humanity as creation and that is the real tragedy in most murder cases.
That is why the big authors choose sympathetic culprits most of the time and that's why I find mysteries with a purely evil culprit boring...not only because it is unrealistic, but also because it is difficult to relate to them.

Who can relate to a maniac who rips the skin of his living victims and feeds them to a group of wild dogs?! Hopefully none of the readers.
But many people can relate to somebody who feels trapped, unable to act and wishes for just one way to gain power over those who wronged him or her. That is somebody who sees no other escape than murder.
Those are the real tragedies and the real horrors, because that struggle happens in many of us everyday.

->You said that there are types of killing, like in a war, that are justified and deserve sympathy.
->You then said that "killing is killing" implying that killing is the same no matter what.

Your argument contradicts itself.

I am sorry, but you completely misunderstood what I wanted to say.

What I was saying is that killing is never justified.
Be it war, defense or joy, taking a life is taking a life, all it depends on is the reluctance or willingness to kill in general. I think many people who kill in a war would just as well kill in general, if it weren't morally and actively judged by society.
You said that, "You don't get to be treated well if you kill someone. You don't get to be remembered for the good things you did if you kill someone.".
Why would you say is the willingness to kill for the prosperity of your country any less misguided than killing for something personal like revenge or hatred?

Quote:

->You said I should feel sympathy for a cold blooded murderer because there are murderers that are not cold blooded.
->THAT LOGIC DOESN'T ADD UP.

And how exactly do you define "cold blooded murderer"?
When is a murder really cold blooded and when do we cross the line towards desperation as an explenation for the wrong path that the culprit took?

Let's assume the culprit really was Yasu.
S/he is a confused child who grew up without any parents or knowledge of her descent. She was merely a part of the "house of Ushiromiya" a concept she felt not really like a part of. The only real friends are imaginary friends she makes up to keep her company, while the adult servants see no real need in keeping her from that.

At the age of maybe 14 or 15, she suddenly learns through the orchestration of the head-servant, Genji, that she was the rightful heir to that house she served all along. The current head of family is both her grandfather and her father and her real mother died in a freak accident, when she abandoned her in search for freedom. The woman who was supposed to adopt her and is now her employer was so disgusted by the thought of raising her, that she rather had her fall down a cliff than care for her. And the only people she considered family, Kumasawa and Genji, were keeping all that from her.

To make matters even better, the guy she is in love with suddenly vanishes without giving her any proper reason, right after he promised to take her away. And 6 years later, when she finally moved on and decided to give everything away, that guy returns and she is given a small chance to live happily ever after with him...only to learn that he seems to have forgotten her entirely.

And even though she has all that gold and is practically the head of the family she cannot really act on it, because there is no way for her to actually prove her existence as the rightful heir. The children of Kinz˘ make it pretty clear that they won't let anybody interfere with their personal way towards the inheritance...imagine their reaction towards a former servant who suddenly turned up and said she was the illegitimate child of their father and an unkown/unnamed woman, who is the daughter of the escaped daughter of an Italian general from WWII, who should have been executed in Italy and survived with the help of Kinz˘ and Dr. Nanj˘ in total secrecy until she died giving birth to that unnamed and unregistered daughter in a secret mansion in the woods on Rokkenjima.
It's not like there were any reliable parenthood tests back in the 80's that would have proven anything without any records concerning that mysterious mother who nobody knew and nobody except some not really talkative servants ever saw.

Don't get me wrong, if she really was the murderer in this story it would still be wrong what she did, but you cannot tell me that it's impossible to understand why she would have done it...and it's not like she is the only one who suffered.

"Fuck you, you killed that dude!"
"He was going to blow up an occupied orphanage, and force was the only means to stop him! By doing so I saved the lives of 80 orphans."
"Fuck you, you killed a dude. You shouldn't of done so. He would've gotten punished for his crime, but now we gotta punish you."

Quote:

Don't get me wrong, if she really was the murderer in this story it would still be wrong what she did, but you cannot tell me that it's impossible to understand why she would have done it...and it's not like she is the only one who suffered.

Sherry never said otherwise.

But hey, you think you know more about criminal justice than an actual lawyer, so whatever.

Be it war, defense or joy, taking a life is taking a life, all it depends on is the reluctance or willingness to kill in general. I think many people who kill in a war would just as well kill in general, if it weren't morally and actively judged by society.
You said that, "You don't get to be treated well if you kill someone. You don't get to be remembered for the good things you did if you kill someone.".
Why would you say is the willingness to kill for the prosperity of your country any less misguided than killing for something personal like revenge or hatred?

I'm sorry, that's wrong on so many levels.
An army's not a bunch of homicidal maniacs running rampage on foreign ground.
Their duty's not to kill as much enemies as possible, but to protect innocents and re-establish order where it has been lost, even if it means resorting to force (At least from my understanding).
Psychologically speaking they don't go away unscathed either. War veterans shooting themselves after returning from a war is not a rare occurence, Sherry's analogy might not be that off after all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

"Fuck you, you killed that dude!"
"He was going to blow up an occupied orphanage, and force was the only means to stop him! By doing so I saved the lives of 80 orphans."
"Fuck you, you killed a dude. You shouldn't of done so. He would've gotten punished for his crime, but now we gotta punish you."

Likewise:
"Hey, I'm your friendly neighborhood terrorist and I'm going to kill all the minorities in this country, and that, and that next to that, and then I'm gonna blow up a buncha bombs in your country, have fun!"
(I know it's clichÚed, I'm not even american, but bear with me.)

But hey, you think you know more about criminal justice than an actual lawyer, so whatever.

Hmmm there's a japanese lawyer on the forums?

Edit: Killing is very very easy to justify, after all that's what nearly all the Shounen stories and hollywood movies is about. To say killing is wrong, one must see humans in a very favorable light. I guess for random example, I remember in India that this guy was caught for kidnapping children, raping them, killing them, and then eating their bodies. Once a guy did all that to your child, not killing sound like it would be more wrong. If anything it's a service to the rest of humanity at that point.

Beside whenever a judge gives the death penalty, it remains killing. There's plenty of grey areas when it comes to murder.